# Low Jet flyby video. Real or fake? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 18, 2010, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-jet-flyby-video-real-or-fake/525370 "2010-01-18T00:10:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![brewha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@brewha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brewha)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-jet-flyby-video-real-or-fake/525370/21 "2010-01-18T20:22:48Z")
What’s really funny is that the same video links posted here are also posted in the thread that I first saw this clip. Just to save time, I’ll just post these two. They’re bound to come up eventually! [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/m8k0jxoFboc/hqdefault.jpg "Extremely Low Jet Fly-by Over San Francisco Bay") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8k0jxoFboc) [![]( " - YouTube") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4vrV-pbJ8g) So, I’ll just go with the Mythbusters’ standby - plausible, but not verified. ---
**Author:** ![GargoyleWB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gargoylewb/32/199_2.png) [@GargoyleWB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GargoyleWB)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-jet-flyby-video-real-or-fake/525370/22 "2010-01-18T22:02:08Z")
> [@brewha](#): > > Actually, that double image is just the way some digital videos work. Just to echo this in a bit more detail. With a compressed digital video, ghosting, doubling, blurring, edge artifacts, and more are to be expected and will not be consistent. A single frame may (and probably is) be pre-fetching or post-fetching data from other frames to anticipate and guess at what it is drawing in the current frame. It is not at all like comparing film frames which exist in isolation. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-jet-flyby-video-real-or-fake/525370/23 "2010-01-18T22:44:36Z")
> [@brewha](#): > > What’s really funny is that the same video links posted here are also posted in the thread that I first saw this clip. Just to save time, I’ll just post these two. They’re bound to come up eventually! > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8k0jxoFboc](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8k0jxoFboc) > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4vrV-pbJ8g](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4vrV-pbJ8g) > So, I’ll just go with the Mythbusters’ standby - plausible, but not verified. I have to question a lot of these 10 ft off the deck videos if for no other reason I would assume it would be extraordinarily dangerous to fly that way. There is a lot more tubulance at low levels and all you need is a slight downdraft at 500 mph and that’s that. Also, they look way too fast. We’ve all seen an aircraft on final approach (about 150 - 200 mph). Aircraft don’t just go from appearing on the horizon to being right on top of you in two seconds. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-jet-flyby-video-real-or-fake/525370/24 "2010-01-18T23:11:34Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > I have to question a lot of these 10 ft off the deck videos if for no other reason I would assume it would be extraordinarily dangerous to fly that way. There is a lot more tubulance at low levels and all you need is a slight downdraft at 500 mph and that’s that. > > Also, they look way too fast. We’ve all seen an aircraft on final approach (about 150 - 200 mph). Aircraft don’t just go from appearing on the horizon to being right on top of you in two seconds. Dunno about any of the other videos, but the one in the OP is probably real. It’s a Harrier, and it’s probably flying with the thrust vectored slightly downward. Anyway, it’s not doing a lot more than 150-200 mph. Cars on oval racetracks pass you at the same speeds. ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-jet-flyby-video-real-or-fake/525370/25 "2010-01-18T23:16:52Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > I have to question a lot of these 10 ft off the deck videos if for no other reason I would assume it would be extraordinarily dangerous to fly that way. There is a lot more tubulance at low levels and all you need is a slight downdraft at 500 mph and that’s that. > > Also, they look way too fast. We’ve all seen an aircraft on final approach (about 150 - 200 mph). Aircraft don’t just go from appearing on the horizon to being right on top of you in two seconds. To be honest, all of those linked so far a considerably further off the ground than ten feet. As for the danger, RAF practice low flying in the mountains around here all the time and they do lose the odd one. Most of those clips are in flattish areas. Trust me though - they really come on to you surprisingly fast when they’ve got a bit of speed on. ---
**Author:** ![Busy\_Scissors](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d78d45/32.png) [@Busy\_Scissors](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Busy_Scissors)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-jet-flyby-video-real-or-fake/525370/26 "2010-01-18T23:30:47Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > Some more low-flying nutters in fast jets: > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IwplA7\_4lU&feature=related](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IwplA7_4lU&feature=related) Love that clip - third guy is a mentalist. Is it RAF as titled? They’re all speaking French, you’d need some Gallic flair to pull that off. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-jet-flyby-video-real-or-fake/525370/27 "2010-01-18T23:31:50Z")
> [@Joe Frickin Friday](#): > > I think the downwash is less intense when a plane is flying fast (than when flying slow). Correct. To be specific, induced drag (of which the wingtip vortices are the physical manifestation) is proportional to the inverse square of the indicated airspeed. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-jet-flyby-video-real-or-fake/525370/28 "2010-01-18T23:32:26Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > I have to question a lot of these 10 ft off the deck videos if for no other reason I would assume it would be extraordinarily dangerous to fly that way. There is a lot more tubulance at low levels and all you need is a slight downdraft at 500 mph and that’s that. > > Also, they look way too fast. We’ve all seen an aircraft on final approach (about 150 - 200 mph). Aircraft don’t just go from appearing on the horizon to being right on top of you in two seconds. Sure it’s more dangerous, probably not as dangerous as you’re thinking though. Flying low and fast is what many military pilots are specifically trained to do, it’s their job and they’re good at it. There is no turbulence on a nice day, particularly over water. These aircraft are going a lot faster than an airliner on approach and they are a lot smaller and need to be reasonably close to the camera before they’re visible to the camera. The people standing around can obviously see the jets for a lot longer than we can. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-jet-flyby-video-real-or-fake/525370/29 "2010-01-18T23:44:03Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > I have to question a lot of these 10 ft off the deck videos if for no other reason I would assume it would be extraordinarily dangerous to fly that way. There is a lot more tubulance at low levels and all you need is a slight downdraft at 500 mph and that’s that. Actually, at very low levels, you get into Ground Effect, which helps somewhat. But yes, low level flying is dangerous. So is being caught on enemy radar. That said, one of the hallmarks of jet jockeys is supreme self-confidence. And hijinks. So it’s totally believable. ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-jet-flyby-video-real-or-fake/525370/30 "2010-01-18T23:44:36Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Can anyone come up with a non-faked explanation of how that could work? How about “If you were faking it, why you make a double image”? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-jet-flyby-video-real-or-fake/525370/31 "2010-01-19T00:10:20Z")
> [@Busy\_Scissors](#): > > Love that clip - third guy is a mentalist. Is it RAF as titled? They’re all speaking French, you’d need some Gallic flair to pull that off. I decided to take one for the fight against ignorance and look deep into the comments section. The consensus is that they are Belgian airforce Alphajets (I’m having bother pausing the video at a good frame to get a look but they definitely aren’t Tornadoes as claimed - single engine ) and the spectators are speaking Flemish. Possibly. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-jet-flyby-video-real-or-fake/525370/32 "2010-01-19T01:52:56Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > There is a lot more tubulance at low levels and all you need is a slight downdraft at 500 mph and that’s that. Not really. Turbulence certainly can make for a rough ride, but has no greater tendency to cause loss of control at high speed than at low - indeed, at high speed, you have much higher control authority. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-jet-flyby-video-real-or-fake/525370/33 "2010-01-19T04:28:44Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Dunno about any of the other videos, but the one in the OP is probably real. It’s a Harrier, and it’s probably flying with the thrust vectored slightly downward. > > Anyway, it’s not doing a lot more than 150-200 mph. Cars on oval racetracks pass you at the same speeds. The video title clearly states it’s a [Mirage F1](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage_F1), not a Harrier (and I don’t think it’s an Alpha Jet either). Spotting features include the only slight anhedral (droop) of the wings, compared to the much more noticable anhedral of the Harrier’s wings, and the large centerline tank or pod. The tandem landing gear of the Harrier does not allow large centerline tanks to be fitted. According to Wiki, eight countries still fly Mirage F1s, including Frande, Spain and several middle eastern militaries. Based on the appearance of the terrain in the video, it could a French machine operated in Chad or Afghanistan, or by one of the middle eastern operators in its home country. Here’s [another video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC1fMfdCCdM&feature=fvw) of Mirage F1’s (and -2000s) in French service, possibly shot at the same location, showing, among other things, the same aircraft type doing a relatively low-speed pass at an even lower altitude than the video linked by the OP. The sequence in question starts around 1min 19. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-jet-flyby-video-real-or-fake/525370/34 "2010-01-19T05:48:30Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > The video title clearly states it’s a [Mirage F1](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage_F1), not a Harrier (and I don’t think it’s an Alpha Jet either). So it does. Only looked at the first link, which is untitled. It also has the odd bulge just below the top of the vertical stabilizer that the F1 has. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Mondegreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/91b2a8/32.png) [@Lord\_Mondegreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Mondegreen)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-jet-flyby-video-real-or-fake/525370/35 "2010-01-19T11:34:20Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Fake. Nerves of steel don’t trump the laws of physics. He should have been buffeted by the vortex coming off the plane. I don’t see any signs of movement. I make no judgement as to the validity of the clip, but if I recall my long ago pilot training correctly, the major vorticies from an aircraft come from its wingtips. If it was passing directly overhead there wouldn’t be that much turbulence. I may be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-jet-flyby-video-real-or-fake/525370/36 "2010-01-19T14:30:06Z")
Former fighter pilot … I watched the youtube linked in the OP’s post. I haven’t looked at the other links Looks like a Harrier to me. It is 100% certainly not a Mirage F1 as the video is titled. Ref [Dassault Mirage F1 - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage_F1) , the size of the engine intakes is way wrong, and the wing anhedral is all wrong too. He’s doing ~300mph. IOW, moderately fast. He’s also at 50’. IOW, moderately low. That’s not at all hard to do over a perfectly flat smooth runway. Against the rules, at least in the peacetime USAF I dealt with, but not difficult. I’ve done both the flyby & stood on the ground myself in fairly similar situations. IMO, the flyby is 100% real. The camera shake as the jet goes by is 100% real. The guy standing there is 100% real. But not all at the same time. The recording of the guy standing on the runway then walking away was composited over the recording of the flyby. Not flinching even a smidgen is real unlikely given the number of chances you get to practice something like this: once or twice before the Boss catches on. If you thought the video was loud, you ain’t heard nuthin’ yet, mouse-ears or no. It will rattle your skeleton. But the real killer is that the camera is shaken by the wake & engine blast. The guy isn’t, and _neither are his clothes_. Even nerves of steel don’t make for stiff but baggy camo pants. Trust me, there is plenty of wake to do that. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-jet-flyby-video-real-or-fake/525370/37 "2010-01-19T15:06:14Z")
> [@ianzin](#): > > Even if it is a fake, it wouldn’t be this simple. The camera is not locked off, it moves from side to side with true parallax. Plus, its movement seemingly corresponds to the physical effect of the plane passing by. You would need to replicate this exact same movement on both passes in order to be able to achieve a seamless composite. Not necessarily. If you steady the shot of one, then you can easily track and composite it back into the other. ---
**Author:** ![brewha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@brewha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brewha)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-jet-flyby-video-real-or-fake/525370/38 "2010-01-21T14:06:50Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > But the real killer is that the camera is shaken by the wake & engine blast. The guy isn’t, and _neither are his clothes_. Even nerves of steel don’t make for stiff but baggy camo pants. Trust me, there is plenty of wake to do that. Those look like standard issue BDU pants to me. And, especially if they’re winter weight and starched, they’d be pretty stiff. That aside, I think they do move. The wake would hit the guy after the plane passes, so most of the effect (conveniently enough!) would happen during the camera shake. But just before the camera does move look real close at where his pants are bloused - just above the tops of his boots. I think I see the right one move. Still, good discussion. And nothing conclusive one way or another! ---
**Author:** ![kombatminipig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b5ac83/32.png) [@kombatminipig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kombatminipig)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-jet-flyby-video-real-or-fake/525370/39 "2010-01-21T16:44:40Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > Looks like a Harrier to me. It is 100% certainly not a Mirage F1 as the video is titled. Ref [Dassault Mirage F1 - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage_F1) , the size of the engine intakes is way wrong, and the wing anhedral is all wrong too. Can’t agree with you there. The anhedral of the Harrier is severe, with the wingtips almost as low as the tip of the nose. I’ve never seen a Harrier equipped with a centerline drop tank either. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-jet-flyby-video-real-or-fake/525370/40 "2010-01-21T22:36:36Z")
Correct, the Harrier doesn’t have a centre hardpoint, that space is taken up with the main undercarriage. I think the aircraft in the video has less anhedral than it looks like. The aircraft is above the height of the camera and so you’re looking up at it slightly, this makes the sweep of the wing look like anhedral, or at least it exaggerates the anhedral. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-jet-flyby-video-real-or-fake/525370.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-jet-flyby-video-real-or-fake/525370.md?page=3)